Month

November 2016

We have in our possession the document issued as guidance by the NEC for investigations of any alleged Disciplinary offenses NEC Advice Note:

`How to carry out an investigation into a breach of rule by a Member`

The document ends with an example of the bundle to be presented to the disciplinary panel.

The first paragraph refers to the member as: Mr A Member.

But after that the member under investigation is referred to as DONALD DUCK!

Model Charge Sheet

Charge Sheet for Mr A. Member (Membership Number), Anytown CLP

The charge is that Mr A. Member is in breach of rule 2.I.8 regarding the following:

Charge 1

That on 18 January 2013 during the AGM of Littletown Branch, and subsequent Littletown Branch meetings on 7 March and 4 April 2013 and also a CLP General Meeting meeting on 26 February 2013,

Donald Duckbehaved in an intimidating, threatening and/or uncomradely manner towards other members present and/or encouraged other members of the ward to behave in an uncomradely fashion.

This strongly implies that whoever compiled the document thinks it’s a laughing matter when it’s not. Secondly the Donald Duck would have been removed by any conscientious discerning person as it’s disrespectful, and even if only seen by the investigating person is dismissive and patronising.

It is further extraordinary that ANYONE seeing this does not lodge a formal complaint against it. But then the Labour Party bureaucracy doesn`t provide a way to complain about them directly does it!

We cannot think of any procedural guidance issued by any organisation that would produce and circulate such a document containing such a ‘joke’ on such a serious matter.

We at the Members Compliance Support Team are astonished and incensed on behalf of members that they are referred to in such a joking fashion. We have been privy to some heartbreaking stories of the effect of the `purge` on people, and this just beggars belief.

A motion of no-confidence in Mr McNicol over the wave of suspensions and expulsions that prevented tens of thousands of members voting in the recent leadership election on top of those excluded on the basis of an arbitrary date, was debated at the CLP’s monthly meeting, with passion on both sides of the debate but in a completely comradely fashion.

An attempt was made to neuter the motion by proposing a drastic amendment to it, effectively removing all but a couple of lines, including the no-confidence motion, turning it into a mere expression of concern and request for clarification – but this was rejected by almost all those present.

Those against the motion argued that members should ‘move on’ and let bygones be bygones in order to concentrate on attacking the Tories.

Those for argued that this was missing the point – that taking the fight to the Tories properly is hampered as long as people prepared to exploit and subvert proper process to deprive members of their right to vote are left in a position to do so in future and that this would discourage new members from joining, or from full, enthusiastic participation if they do join.

The full motion is available at the end of this article, but the crucial part reads as follows:

As general secretary, Mr McNicol has legal responsibility for the Labour Party and must ensure that everything done by the party is legal. He has not ensured that the processing of complaints against members has achieved an acceptable standard and – because this directly relates to the leadership ballot – this means he has not ensured that the processing of ballots to members has been carried out properly.

We therefore call for a vote of no confidence in Mr McNicol as general secretary of the Labour Party. The CLP resolves for the process of suspensions/expulsions to be transparent, fair, clear and completed in reasonable timescales due to members not being able to particpate in meetings and the distress and damage to members mental health.

The result of the vote was ‘against’ 14, ‘for’ overwhelming (i.e. no full count of the ‘for’ votes was taken because the vote was so clearly carried. Ms Eagle voted against, as is to be expected.

MOTION CARRIED:

1. Retrospective code of conduct and suspensions/expulsions This CLP notes with alarm the imposition of new rules of conduct by the National Executive Committee which were supposed to be used to prevent abusive behaviour between members but which seem to have been used as a tool to purge people from the party prior to the leadership election, by suspension or expulsion.

There seems to have been no clear standard or even guidelines and the NEC ‘panels’ enforcing the new rules seem to have relied on their own arbitrary judgment. This means that people have been purged for things they have said on social media in the distant past even when the comments do not relate to their political lives in any way.

Some have been purged over previous support for policies put forward by other parties – but when we need to win over those who have voted for other parties in the past, why should anyone be barred from Labour just because they have expressed support for a policy proposal by another party?

Others have been purged for reasons that can only be described as ridiculous – such as the person who expressed her support for a particular rock band in a forceful way. All of the letters notifying members that they are no longer members had Iain McNicol’s name attached to them.

As general secretary, Mr McNicol has legal responsibility for the Labour Party and must ensure that everything done by the party is legal. He has not ensured that the processing of complaints against members has achieved an acceptable standard and – because this directly relates to the leadership ballot – this means he has not ensured that the processing of ballots to members has been carried out properly.

We therefore call for a vote of no confidence in Mr McNicol as general secretary of the Labour Party. The CLP resolves for the process of suspensions/expulsions to be transparent, fair, clear and completed in reasonable timescales due to members not being able to particpate in meetings and the distress and damage to members mental health.

As of this evening, Garston & Halewood Constituency Labour Party in Liverpool – Maria Eagle’s constituency – officially has no confidence in the party’s General Secretary, Iain McNicol.

A motion of no-confidence in Mr McNicol over the wave of suspensions and expulsions that prevented tens of thousands of members voting in the recent leadership election on top of those excluded on the basis of an arbitrary date, was debated at the CLP’s monthly meeting, with passion on both sides of the debate but in a completely comradely fashion.

An attempt was made to neuter the motion by proposing a drastic amendment to it, effectively removing all but a couple of lines, including the no-confidence motion, turning it into a mere expression of concern and request for clarification – but this was rejected by almost all those present.

Those against the motion argued that members should ‘move on’ and let bygones…

Summer 2016 saw the re-election of Jeremy Corbyn to the position of leader of the Labour Party.

It also saw many lose their democratic right to vote for various reasons and by various methods. Some because emails were not received, some told they couldn`t be found on the electoral role (when an easy search established they were) and other examples where the administration fell short. Thousands were `purged` by use of immediate admin suspensions that is a facility that should only be used for exceptional circumstances – and most of these have now been unsuspended but lost their vote. Then we have the extraordinary 6 month freeze date; and also the increase from £3 to £25 fee to vote and only 2 days to use that option.

In the warm after-glow of Jeremy Corbyn’s win (with an increased mandate) there seems to be a rash of letters lifting suspensions but with the proviso that a warning stays on file.

A warning issued without an investigation ever taking place. This must be like appearing in court and being found guilty without the police ever conducting an investigation. No one would ever accept that and an appeal would obviously follow.

But it appears that people simply don’t want to talk about this. Some appear to be blissfully unaware of the dirty tricks employed to disenfranchise thousands of members. Is this because it doesn’t affect them directly or because the Labour Party has not been open about it, keeping things behind closed doors and trying to find a rug big enough to sweep this under?

Our party was founded on the principles of standing up for those that can’t do so themselves, giving a voice to those that are too fearful to speak for themselves.

Where have those values gone? I recently tabled a motion at my CLP calling for suspensions to be lifted and a proper process of investigation put in place. As I looked around the room I saw many blank faces, faces that suggested that they didn’t have a clue what had been going on.

Some struggled to find a defence for the actions of the NEC or to come up with facts to counter those presented to them. The motion was passed with only one vote against. The conversations in the pub afterwards also pointed to a lack of knowledge of the situation and a true desire to find out more and ask questions of those responsible.

People seem scared within their own party. Scared (or simply not aware) to support fellow members in what has been a massively difficult time for those “purged”. A lot of people have felt very alone, filled with self doubt and unsure who to turn to for support as they were banned from attending their own CLPs and some report that they were even removed from Facebook groups and forums. Mud sticks. Right? No smoke without fire? This has come about through lack of knowledge, poor communication and a desire by some to ignore it because “it’ll all sort itself out”. Well it won’t sort itself out on its own and it won’t go away either.

Why haven’t the NEC issued a statement? Why are they trying to keep us in the dark? Do they not realise that this is causing great division and mistrust within the party? Why does there appear to be no due process and an obvious lack of natural justice? Even the Torys have a default position of natural justice in their disciplinary process.

Members seem to be fearful of showing support for the suspended/expelled in case their membership is at risk. Some appear to be in complete denial that their beloved party would ever do such a thing to its membership.

This is a membership that will turn out in all weather to campaign.

The same membership that will canvas for and promote parliamentary candidates, exactly the same as the purged members have done in the past. We need to talk about the elephant in the room (or the large lump under the carpet).

We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow members and tell the NEC that things need to change quickly Obviously anyone who is found to have breached rules must have some level of sanction against them There is a strong desire for unity within the party but I fear that we will never achieve this until the truth comes out in a public way. How can we expect to govern the country when our party appears to be so underhanded with its membership? I’m sure more will be suspended but that will only make our voice stronger.

We asked a number of people to do a critique on the Labour Party Rule book – and focusing at this time on Chapter 6 which is concerned with the Complaints Procedure. Here Glynis Millward, a suspended Labour Party member gives her critique.

Report on Labour Party Rule Book 2016

Background

I have read the copy of the Rule Book 2016 (the rules) which was in force at the time the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the Labour Party suspended the vast majority of Labour Party members on or around the period July 2016 to September 2016:-

Chapter 6 (pages 24 – 25) under the heading Disciplinary Rules, is made up of Clause I and Clause II, with the former headed National Action by the Party and Action by CLPs respectively.

Clause I – National action by the party

“The NEC shall take such disciplinary measures as it deems necessary …”

There is no explanation of these “measures”, other than to say that “such powers shall include …”

At first glance, it is suggested to the reader that the NEC can do what it likes. Although some details are shown at Chapter 6 Clause I parts A, B and C, there are clearly other powers that are not referred to either in the rules or anywhere else, regarding ordinary members.

suggestions

Bullet point specific nec powers in relation to ordinary members or provide details in an appendix where they may be found.

overreliance on acronyms and abbreviations could lead to confusion; key to be provided at start of each section explaining acronyms and abbreviations.

CLAUSE I – A

It is stated, “ In relation to any alleged breach of the constitution, rules or standing orders of the Party by an individual member or members of the Party,…” No links are provided in relation to;

What constitutes a breach and

Where the constitution, rules or standing orders may be found.

This section continues with, “The NEC may pending the final outcome of any investigation and charges (if any) suspend that individual from office or representation of the party”

In this report authors experience of assisting suspended members through the process of their suspension, most ordinary members do not hold office within the party or indeed consider themselves to be a representative of the party and are therefore under the impression that this does not apply to them.

The section continues with …” The General Secretary or other National Officer shall investigate and report to the NEC on any such investigation”

It is not stated what form this “investigation” will take or indeed, what part the ordinary member will play in it.

It is then stated that when the report is submitted, “The NEC may instruct the General secretary or other National officer to formulate charges against the individual concerned and present such charges to the NCC for determination in accordance with those rules”

No timeline is provided in relation to this process and no details are provided as to what the members rights are in relation to this process.

suggestions

The terms used should include the words “ordinary members”, this will raise awareness of the fact that these clauses also apply to them.

Again, there is a reliance on abbreviations and acronyms

A flow chart which shows the process and progress of a “standard” investigation would be helpful. Some people find reams of text difficult to digest, particularly when everyday language is not being used. A visual representation of this process will greatly aid understanding of it.

CLAUSE I – B

“In relation to any alleged breach of Labour group rules and standing orders by a group member or members, the NEC may, pending the final outcome of any investigation and charges (if any), suspend that individual or individuals from the group in question”

This sub clause appears to relate to “groups” that the individual may be a member of. However, it does not refer to which “groups” these are likely to be.

suggestions

An explanation of the groups referred to, in list form, should be provided.

CLAUSE I – C

“…the NEC may issue written warnings to any individual member of the Party drawing attention to the conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is either incompatible with continued membership of the Party or may be in, or may lead to, a breach of the constitution, rules or standing orders of the Party.”

It is not clear from this section if the letters sent to members who were suspended constitute the “warning” or if it refers to those members who had their suspension lifted and were issued with a “warning” that their alleged breach of the rules would remain on record idefinately.

In the opinion of the author of this report, the wording in this section is unnecessarily confusing, cumbersome, convoluted and open to misinterpretation by the ordinary member.

suggestions

The process/procedure in respect of the issue of warnings should be clarified.

It would be helpful if ordinary, everyday language was used not just throughout the rules, but certainly in relation to this section as it would be hoped that the issue of suspensions and charges would not be of such a regular occurrence that the ordinary member would be familiar with it.

Avenues of support (where they exist) should be communicated to the member in this section; being suspended, expelled or rejected is likely to be an upsetting experience for the ordinary member and details of individuals or groups that they can discuss this matter with would be helpful.

CLAUSE 1:2

This section concerns the readmission of the member following their expulsion and states “such application shall not normally be considered by the NEC until a minimum of 5 years has elapsed”

There is no explanation as to what breach by the member would warrant expulsion from the party.

Five years is a significant amount of time in anyones’ language and there is no explanation as to why that minimum period is applied.

There is no information about an expulsion appeals process or support process.

suggestions

The process/procedure in respect of the issue of expulsions should be clarified especially in relation to appeals against the expulsion. It is the opinion of this author that expulsions are far more serious than suspensions and there should be a clear and robust process for appeals and complaints for members who find themselves in this category.

Avenues of support (where they exist) should be communicated to the member in this section; being suspended, expelled or rejected is likely to be an upsetting experience for the ordinary member and details of individuals or groups that they can discuss this matter with would be helpful.

CLAUSE 1:3

It is stated; “require the membership rights of the individual member concerned to be confined to participation in their own branch meetings”

Ordinary members, especially those new to the party, may not be familiar with the party hierarchy, and may not understand the meaning of a “branch meeting”

Similarly, where it is stated; “in such ballots of all individual members as may be prescribed by the NEC” clarification is required.

suggestions

A “hierarchy” chart showing how the party is organized would be useful for new members

CLAUSE II – Action by CLPs

CLAUSE II – 1

Again, there is no reference to where the constitution, rules or standing orders may be viewed by the member.

The impression is given that in the matter of a third party complaint, it is the CLP who enforce compliance.

CLAUSE II – A

The 3rd party complaint process in relation to the member complained of is not included, especially in respect of informing the member that an allegation has been made against them

CLAUSE II – B

There is no mention as to what the Executive Committee of the CLP take into account when deciding if an investigation into the complaint is warranted.

CLAUSE II – C

No mention of the members part in this process.

CLAUSE II – D

1. No mention of the members part in this process.

CLAUSE II – E

Nil of note

CLAUSE II – F

Nil of note

CLAUSE II – G

Nil of note

CLAUSE II – H

It appears from this section, that the member complained of may not be allowed the opportunity to submit their own evidence.

CLAUSE II – I

Details as to how the investigators may arrive at a “prima facie” case is not clear; there are no details of any checks or balances, such as an independent audit in respect of these investigation.

CLAUSE II – J

Nil of note

CLAUSE II – K

Nil of note

CLAUSE II – L

It appears to only at this stage, with the “charge” being referred to the NCC, that the member complained of has an opportunity for an oral hearing.

Summary

It is the opinion of this author, that throughout both the suspension and appeal process, the member appears to be of minor importance.

There is a lack of support and a lack of communication throughout both processes.

It should be acknowledged by the NEC, NCC and EC CLP that both old and new members are not likely to be familiar with either the suspension or expulsion process as by their very nature, these processes should be a rare occurrence.

It is important, says this author, that there needs to be information available to and support for members, both old and new who find themselves in the situation where they are suspended or expelled.

It is concerning, that despite the 2 tick disability logo which appears on the bottom of suspension/expulsion letters, the committees do not appear to be complying with their obligations within the Equality Act by making reasonable adjustments especially for those members who are vulnerable or suffer with mental health issues. Support MUST be made available for these members – as it is a lawful requirement to do so.

The wording used in the rules is obtuse, confusing, onerous and untidily drafted. If it is not possible to rewrite it (due to cost and/or resources), then at the very least, an easy to read summary should be available to members either on line or in hard copy form. The Plain English website gives excellent tips on drafting information leaflets and will even proof read and edit forms and publications for a small fee.

Glynis Millward suspended Labour Party member

We asked a few other people for their opinion of the accessibility of Ch. 6 and Appendix 6 which deals with procedures related to Ch. 6 here are their responses:

`I could not bear to read this document (too much for my poor brain) but dipping in here and there, it seems to me that whoever did the dirty work – ie expelling people – didn’t read it either. There are some complicated things that have to be done that it seems were not done at least in some cases.`

`As a solicitor I find it relatively straightforward but I don’t blame anyone for finding it rather wordy and inscrutable. But I don’t see in the rules any justification for suspending a person, then lifting the suspension, without any investigation in which the person has the right to speak and to challenge the suspension. If there has been a secret investigation leading to a secret report leading to a decision to un-suspend, then I think we must assert that the suspended person must have the right to see the report.`

` Hmmm….two degrees and a professional qualification and I need to lie down in a darkened room with a cold flannel before reading this again.`

` I am a university graduate with two post-graduate qualifications and rarely have I found anything that is as impenetrable as this! I would be more interested in something in plain language that the average person can understand. I am also wondering if there are members’ rights akin to a grievance policy in the workplace. Eg – if I do something wrong, I can be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. However if I am badly treated by a manager or colleague, I can take out a grievance. I certainly feel that I have been treated very badly and am seriously thinking of taking out a grievance if such a system exists and can be understood!`

`I’m PhD level and I have continually suggested there has to be a grievance procedure for members to follow and no one has found one! I work for a teachers union and frequently have to use this method with considerable success. There must be procedures in place and the ordinary rules published by LP only protect the NEC and CLP which are top down. By law LP must have a procedure for members. Where is it?`

` Not sure about anyone else but I find this draconian in places and open to abuse by then authorities as they can pretty much do whatever whenever`

The incompetence of the L.P. administration – most specifically in relation to the administration of the (non-existent) process concerning those members Suspended or Expelled makes it clear and urgent that the whole system needs to be dismantled and rebuilt. It quite simply is not fit for purpose. Worse than that it is not merely creating a shambles record wise but is seriously damaging members health and wellbeing. SHAME ON MCNICOL AND SHAME ON THE NEC.

Three new examples:

1.`Even though I received a letter 2 weeks ago to say my suspension was lifted (with a warning of course), my CLP have politely told me I am not welcome to attend tomorrow’s meeting as “Unfortunately, in accordance to the membership system, your status today is still “suspended” “. Why am I wasting my precious time?`

2. `I got the same email today! … I haven’t written back yet complaining about the warning on file and in the meantime I get the interview/ suspended email *after* the unsuspended letter`

3. `Here is an example of the complete inefficiency of this band of tossers. Having unsuspended me they have now sent me ANOTHER LETTER about interviewing me!

This is unreal.

Dear xxxx

As you will be aware, you are currently administratively suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation.

The General Secretary has appointed me as investigating officer. Would you please let me know if you are available for interview on Monday 12th December 2016 at 11:30am. The interview will take place over the phone.

Please reply to this email confirming the best number to reach you on. If you have not received the evidence used in this case or if you have any questions about the process, reply to this email.

[Have now received an apology!!! From Sam Matthews fir sending me the letter in error!]

This particular member was unsuspended BUT with the caveat of a Warning and the threat of `left on file` – and has written refusing to accept the Warning and demanding that the assumed guilt is removed from the file. No response except to issue another letter saying they want to carry out a telephone interview! Can you see yet NEC just how this is tantamount to harassment? Can you see yet NEC how you are guilty of a dereliction of duty? NO? Maybe it is simply you don`t care about the effect your

Can you see yet NEC just how this is tantamount to harassment? Can you see yet NEC how you are guilty of a dereliction of duty? NO? Maybe it is simply you don`t care about the effect your non actions in allowing Iain McNicol to continue with this debacle. Non-action on your part makes you equally culpable!! We need a complete overhaul of the whole system. It is not fit for purpose. It is damaging to the Labour Party, let alone to the health of the individual members.

There is a petition doing the rounds about scrapping the fee charged to dv victims by GPs when a report is needed for court. I’ve already signed the petition but they want me to send it on to five other people by email and Twéet Watson when I’ve done it.

Tom Watson’s Digital Manager sent an email to me regarding scrapping the fee for domestic violence victims. This is my reply:

Attn Claire Hughes Digital Manager and

Tom Watson MP Deputy Leader of the Labour party

I support this campaign but I do not support Tom Watson – and cannot tweet him since he has blocked me for having the temerity to tell him that I disapprove of his disloyalty to Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour party.

It has obviously escaped your notice that I am one of the thousands of Labour members who have been rejected by the Compliance Unit. The allegation of ‘abusive behaviour’ has been levelled at me solely because I retweeted two tweets that had hash-tagged words which the Compliance Unit chose to ban – three weeks after I had used them.

How ironic that I stand accused of ‘abusive behaviour’ by one unit of the Labour party – whilst receiving emails from another unit asking for my help in supporting people that have been abused – people that in my thirty-year career in social care I have fought for – victims of domestic violence, child abuse, adult protection – there is not much that either of you can tell me about abuse that I have not already experienced.

When you work with people who really have been abused, then the misuse of the word by a bunch of unqualified clerical staff is laughable – were it not such a vile slur on my character and that of others.

I have always been a believer in natural justice.’ I sat on this for three days but today I thought ah what the hell…

Member suspended and then unsuspended – BUT assumed guilty and issued with a Warning and a note to say the crime `will remain on file` . Kevin Safford, like so many others has refused to accept this warning and assumption of guilt and demanded that they either take the warning and the remain on file` away or he demands a Hearing. A WEEK GOES BY AND NOTHING!

Question: Would you expect the L.P. to respect the following:

In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemoiudex in causasua) and the right to a fair hearing (audialterampartem). While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general “duty to act fairly”.

Well, it doesn`t. The lack of known procedure for complaints, the lack of fairness, the lack of due process, the lack of communication – the L.P. under the General Secretary Iain McNicol and with the support of the current NEC shames us all. We need a complete overhaul of the system to ensure that it is impossible for this to happen again, and that means an acknowledgement that the NEC is also currently not fit for purpose.

They have allowed this debacle of the purge` and the injustices implicit in it to continue despite having a clear knowledge of the injustices meted out, and that continue to be meted out. Members being branded guilty without any right of reply, with any hearing is deplorable.

——————

Kevin Safford: It’s been a week since I sent Iain McNicol my letter, so I rang Labour HQ, and spoke to someone called Ben from the governance and legal unit.

I said I disagreed both with the decision to suspend me, and with the imposition of a penalty (the warning letter). McNicol had been slow to respond in the past, and I was ringing to find out what was happening, and what I needed to do to take things forward.

(“Mr McNicol is the general secretary of the largest political party in Europe. It takes him a long time to respond to members because there are a lot of them.” Me – “He’s quick enough to suspend us.” That pretty much set the tone.)

They insist that I contributed to a crowdfunding site to buy votes. When he referred to my “offence”, I pointed out that it was at this stage an alleged offence – I’d been found guilty without being given the chance to put my side of the story.

The upshot was that I sent the following email, with a copy of my letter:

“As discussed in my phone call with Ben in the governance and legal unit, I am forwarding the letter that I sent to Mr McNicol regarding my suspension and subsequent warning letter. I’d appreciate an early reply.”

I got the following automated reply:

” Thank you for your email. Please note: Due to staff shortages, it may take up to 10 days to respond to your email.If your query is urgent, please call 020 7783 1498 otherwise we will respond in due course.”

Incidentally, although Labour Party feels at liberty to record phone calls, if you tell them you’re doing the same, they refuse to take the call or put you on to someone who will, and hang up.

One extraordinary illustration of the incompetence and unfairness overseen by Iain McNicol is a case where a member was purged because of a retweet ... BUT McNicol hadn`t even bothered to check the identity of the person.

Someone obviously had searched twitter for the person`s name to find something to report him for. AND they found someone of that name and reported him and he was purged. BUT it wasn`t him, it was an American of the same name.

So, maybe you think that`s a one off, and is the worse it can get? NOPE. Today we learnt of someone who was suspended for allegedly `paying for a vote`!

Now no-one paid for a vote anyway but what makes this extra extraordinary is that this person knew nothing about the offer to pay for people`s groceries.

There is absolutely no evidence against him NOTHING! HE HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Guess what – they lifted his suspension BUT they have given him a Warning and `case left on file`!

Posts navigation

Archives

Archives

THE NEC and McNicol must be called to Book NOW – such gross incompetence and injustice evidenced, and yet STILL they continue

One extraordinary illustration of the incompetence and unfairness overseen by Iain McNicol is a case where a member was purged because of a retweet ... BUT McNicol hadn`t even bothered to check the identity of the person.

Someone obviously had searched twitter for the person`s name to find something to report him for. AND they found someone of that name and reported him and he was purged. BUT it wasn`t him, it was an American of the same name.

So, maybe you think that`s a one off, and is the worse it can get? NOPE. Today we learnt of someone who was suspended for allegedly `paying for a vote`!

Now no-one paid for a vote anyway but what makes this extra extraordinary is that this person knew nothing about the offer to pay for people`s groceries.

Guess what - they lifted his suspension BUT they have given him a Warning and `case left on file`!